Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019 May;12(5):e007494. doi: 10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.118.007494.

Physiological Pattern of Disease Assessed by Pressure-Wire Pullback Has an Influence on Fractional Flow Reserve/Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio Discordance.

Author information

1
International Center for Circulatory Health, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital, United Kingdom (T.W., C.M.C., J.P.H., Y.A., M.J.S.-S., R.P., S.S., S.N., R.A.L., D.P.F., J.E.D.).
2
Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Kawasaki, Japan (T.W., Y.I., Y.J.A.).
3
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, St. Marianna University School of Medicine, Yokohama City Seibu Hospital, Japan (S.D., H.M.).
4
Cardiovascular Center, Toda Central General Hospital, Japan (M.N., S.G.).
5
Tokyo Women's Medical University-Waseda University Joint Institution for Advanced Biomedical Sciences, Japan (M.N.).
6
Cardiovascular Institute, Hospital Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain (S.G., J.E.).
7
Department of Cardiology, Kanazawa Cardiovascular Hospital, Japan (Y.Y.).
8
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Okaya City Hospital, Japan (K.K.).
9
Structural Interventional Cardiology, Careggi University Hospital, Florence, Italy (C.d.M.).

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) disagree on the hemodynamic significance of a coronary lesion in ≈20% of cases. It is unknown whether the physiological pattern of disease is an influencing factor for this. This study assessed whether the physiological pattern of coronary artery disease influences discordance between FFR and iFR measurement.

METHODS AND RESULTS:

Three-hundred and sixty intermediate coronary lesions (345 patients; mean age, 64.4±10.3 years; 76% men) with combined FFR, iFR, and iFR pressure-wire pullback were included for analysis from an international multicenter registry. Cut points for hemodynamic significance were FFR ≤0.80 and iFR ≤0.89, respectively. Lesions were classified into FFR+/iFR+ (n=154; 42.7%), FFR-/iFR+ (n=38; 10.6%), FFR+/iFR- (n=41; 11.4%), and FFR-/iFR- (n=127; 35.3%) groups. The physiological pattern of disease was classified according to the iFR pullback recordings as predominantly physiologically focal (n=171; 47.5%) or predominantly physiologically diffuse (n=189; 52.5%). Median FFR and iFR were 0.80 (interquartile range, 0.75-0.85) and 0.89 (interquartile range, 0.86-0.92), respectively. FFR disagreed with iFR in 22% (79 of 360). The physiological pattern of disease was the only influencing factor relating to FFR/iFR discordance: predominantly physiologically focal was significantly associated with FFR+/iFR- (58.5% [24 of 41]), and predominantly physiologically diffuse was significantly associated with FFR-/iFR+ (81.6% [31 of 38]; P<0.001 for pattern of disease between FFR+/iFR- and FFR-/iFR+ groups).

CONCLUSIONS:

The physiological pattern of coronary artery disease was an important influencing factor for FFR/iFR discordance.

KEYWORDS:

coronary artery disease; fractional flow reserve, myocardial; hemodynamics; humans; registries

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Atypon
Loading ...
Support Center